About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
manager brooke. [applause] he is working closely with edgar lopez, who manages all of our major projects, but was here pretty much from day one. they are being supported by our city engineers and the rest of the department coming together to deliver a great project to the ratepayers of san francisco. we're so happy to be a part of this. congratulations to the puc on getting to this point, the topping off ceremony. [applause] >> as the owners, we are certainly willing to move in, but we are not building the building. representing the builders is andy of webcor. [applause] >> it is great to be here. most people do not realize this building almost did not happen. i was at a green building conference and i ran into mayor gavin newsom. he said, we are not going to build that building. we cannot afford to. i said, mayor, you cannot afford not to. this building will be an example of what all cities should build. with the energy savings that were mentioned, this building will be like no others. when the city starts to operate, they will say, why did we not do this before? it is a wonderful thing
. this is not something we would want to pay for. >> mr. brooks is giving a scope of work and he just to find it as the language which is not in scope of work but rather an indication of what would be done anyway. >> i don't want to get hung up on the terminology. we believe that we can amend the contract. we can work with whoever to figure out what those tasks are. mr. brooks would like you to accept the list that has been prepared that we have objected to. we do not believe these of the tasks that are appropriate. we would like it to be included so that you can force the staff to agree with them rather than the regular negotiation process. >> we should not because -- i would be happy to go over this. this continue refers back to the 2007 ordinances which talk about a 360 megawatt program. we offered you a 30 megawatt program and one was to reduce debt and some because of the risk involved. trying to implement a program that we are not trying to implement is a strange thing to try to get someone to do. we're looking at a rollout and having someone to work for the 60 megawatt program which wo
-you to linda brooks burton. [applause] because linda brooks britain last march invited me to plan this program, and i want to thank helen, who i work with in san francisco unified because she introduced me to bryonn bain, and she always introduces me to the various artists that come in to work in the school district. as i learned about bryonn and experienced his presence and i was thinking about putting together this program, it just clicked -- why not bring the two together to bring this link from the past unsegregated jim crow to what is happening in the 21st century and that has been happening? i think i was inspired by michele alexander's booke." >> it is my pleasure to say, ms. colvin, without you we would not be where we are. [applause] thank you for sharing your story, and keep telling your story because we need to know, and our children need to know, and our children's children need to know your story. and we want to thank our sponsors today. we have the san francisco unified school district. we have marked as bookstores, who will be selling this -- ms. colvin's book, written about her
: brooke and steven. >> commissioners, my name is brooke, a member of the advisory board. i am going to speak of the public property adjoining a digital historic district. the existence of a potential california register eligible pacific heights historic district, between britain jackson street -- greenwich and jackson streets. in 2007, the senior planner wrote the inquiry on 2626 filbert street, which i came before you on. it is three blocks from edward ii. this is him. it is true that the building is not within a designated historic district, but the area falls within an area which we found to be a potential historic district, which would qualify as a historic resourced for the ceqa guidelines. we have not established boundaries of what the potential district, but it is a flag for us to the parties in this area extra scrutiny. in 2008, regarding the 2626 filbert case, the potentially california registered eligible district is roughly located between greenwich and a jackson street and lyon and steiner streets. this abuts the property in question. in the july 7, 2011 exhibit a pmnd,
comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just want to reiterate mr. brookes points -- mr. bruck -- brook's . . as soon as that scoping is completed, we will be better able to understand those rates. basically, this is a comprehensive analysis of the potential short and long term employment options that will be offered by the program. this includes workers training, development, that will ensure local hiring and job retention numbers and emphasize a robust training. this also leads to other things such as local businesses, and also the ability to scope opportunities for local contractors. and especially in underserved communities. thank you. president vietor: thank you. additional comments? commissioners? ok, next item, please. i guess we're going to return back to this discussion. where are we -- >> madam president, regular business agenda item 9, a positive -- possible action to approve the project level scope, schedule, and budget of the june 2000 and revised water system improvement program and directs that to send a notice of change report to the california joint legislative
. president olague: brooke, kat anderson, adam, jacob moddy,ody. >> commissioners, brooks sampson, three blocks away from the edward ii site. i support the career nc-3 zoning. any change to this zoning needs careful scrutiny. i have come before you many daytime. for you not to take this seriously would be alarming. i know every housing unit is vital to the city, and the character of the neighborhood is vital to the city as well. i have some concerns. on the density, 64% increase in the number of dwelling units. that is high. rear yard? there is no regard for open space. are you aware of this? there is absolutely no usable outdoor area. the only adjacent outdoor space will be on the sidewalk. there will be no place for lounging, gathering, a keating, etc. -- eating, etcetera the other affordable housing units have been open rear yards. these include sonoma youth and family, oakdale avenue, 18th and alabama streets. finally, the repercussions of no rear yard is grand. for example, smoking will be allowed in each of the 25 units because, guess what, there is nowhere else to go. that would c
today that lori brook, the president of the c.h.a., was quoted in the "examiner" as saying that c. chmplet a. was not against the project, they were just against the city making a precedent of changing zoning rules. i was heartened to see that, and that gives us a way to move forward and accept the project in the area. although it's a little different in the c.h.a.-cal hollow association's letter written by their attorney, which follows a different tact and brings up numerous issues outside of that, among them being issues of crime. he brings up anecdotal evidence of crime at 864 ellis. i actually went on crime stat website and over the last six months at that location, there were 283 crimes reported. if you move two blocks over to 564, or three blocks over to 554 ellis, you actually have 564 crimes. there's actually less crime. if you go to 3155 scott, you have 66 crimes in that same time period. obviously a great place for these youth to be. the letter addresses economic costs of the project. in fact, the increased density is what we need to keep the costs down of this project.
with in their further thoughts as well. are there public comments on this item? >> eric brooks, i am here representing san francisco green party. i was glad to hear a lot of commissioners raise a lot of concerns about financials of the potential for this program rolling out. you can potentially continue it or you can send it on to the board of supervisors. i know they are hot to put something forward on the second and we might want to afford them that opportunity. that item has to do with the local power part of that item has to do with preparation work for the local build out. years ago made very clear that the more of a local build of renewables and efficiency that your cca program has, the lower your price can be to your customers and a much lower -- the lower you can get all of the risks that you are talking about. i just want to correct a little bit your general manager. the advocate side of this debate if you can call it that hasn't been saying that you can do what the staff wants to do at pge prices. we know you can't do that. what we have been saying is that if you do the robust work we ask fo
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)